Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

You are here

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 3200TH MISSION SUPPORT SQUADRON EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA and LOCAL 1897, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Case No. 92 FSIP 188

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 3200TH MISSION SUPPORT SQUADRON EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA and LOCAL 1897, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES
PANEL

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

3200TH MISSION SUPPORT SQUADRON

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

and

LOCAL 1897, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

Case No. 92 FSIP 188

DECISION AND ORDER

The Department of the Air Force,
3200th Mission Support Squadron, Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Eglin APB, Florida
(Employer) filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses
Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. 5 7119, between it and
Local 1897, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union).

After investigation of the
request for assistance, the Panel directed the parties to meet with Assistant
Executive Director Joseph Schimansky for the purpose of resolving issues
concerning their successor collective-bargaining agreement. The parties were
advised that if no settlement were reached, Mr. Schimansky would report to the
Panel on the status of the dispute, including his recommendations for resolving
the issues. Following consideration of this information, the Panel would take
whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse, including the
issuance of a binding decision. Accordingly, Mr. Schimansky met with the parties
on August 5, 1992, at Eglin AFB, Florida, but a complete agreementwas not reached.(1) He reported to the Panel on the status of the dispute,
and the Panel has now considered the entire record in the case.

BACKGROUND

The Employer's mission is to
research, develop, and test non-nuclear weapons. The Union represents
approximately 750 employees located at both Eglin AFB and Hurlbert Field,
Florida, who work at the Employer's non-appropriated-fund instrumentalities in a
wide variety of retail and service positions. The parties' collective-bargaining
agreement expired on January 2, 1983, but has been automatically extended for
additional periods of 3 years since that date. The parties will have a new
agreement pending resolution of the instant dispute.

The parties are at impasse over
the Union's use of the Employer's internal mail distribution system.

1. The Union's Position

During the informal conference,
as part of the negotiations which led to an agreement that the Union would be
provided with on-base office space, it also proposed that it have access to the
Employer's internal mail distribution system, known as the Base Information
Transfer System (BITS). Such access apparently would save it both time and money,
and improve its ability to communicate with the bargaining unit and management
officials. Subsequently, however, the Union failed to submit a final offer and
6upporting statement of position, as it had agreed to do at the informal
conference.

2. The Employer's Position

The Employer's proposal, entitled
"Memorandum of Agreement Concerning Base Distribution of Official
Labor-Management Relations Correspondence," essentially would allow the
Union to use the on-base mail distribution system once its office i6 relocated,
so that it may send official Union labor-management relations correspondence to
management officials. This would be implemented through the use of a "pickup
basket" in Room 125, Building 349. Among other things, it also would
require: (1) the Employer todeliver to the same pickup
basket all correspondence addressed to the Union and placed in the on-base mail
distribution system; and (2) the Union to waive its rights to grieve or file
unfair labor practice (ULP) charges over any matter related to the performance
of the commercial contractor hired to operate the system.

Its proposal should be adopted by
the Panel because it "balances the needs of both parties," and is made
as part of a good faith effort to reach agreement. The same cannot be said about
the Union's handling of the negotiations. Recent discussions between the parties
suggest that the Union "is now seeking more than it stated to the Panel's
representative and the agency on 5 August 1992," even though it has failed to
provide the Employer with a written counterproposal. Finally, the part of its
proposal requiring the Union to waive its right to grieve or file ULP charges
over any matter related to the contractor's performance is reasonable because
the Employer has a full-time quality assurance inspector whose job is to
identify and document problems so that its contract administrator can ensure
their resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Having examined the evidence and
arguments on this issue, we are persuaded that the most prudent course Or action
is to order the Employer to withdraw its proposal. While its final offer is
generally consistent with the proposal it made at the informal conference, the
record reflects that it also contains wording never specifically discussed with
the Panel's representative . In this regard, it is unclear whether the part of
its proposal stating that "correspondence addressed to the Union and placed
in the on-base distribution system will be delivered to that basket" is
intended to permit the Employer to use the on-base distribution system to send
official Agency labor-management relations correspondence to Union officials in
lieu of direct delivery to the Union's office. If it is, the Union would have
the burden of checking the basket every day for receipt of such documents. In
the absence of any comment from the Union on this matter, we are uncomfortable
ordering a provision which may lead to future disputes between the parties. For
some of the same reasons, we are reluctant to order the Union to waive its
statutory and contractual rights "over any matter related to the
contractor's performance." Rather, in view of the lack of information
regarding the proposal's meaning and potential effects, we believe that there is
insufficient support in the record for disturbing the status quo.(2)

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested
in it by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. S
7119, and because of the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during
the course of proceedings instituted under the Panel' 5 regulations, 5 C.F.R. S
2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service Impasses Panel under S 2471.11(a) of its
regulations hereby orders the following:

The Employer shall withdraw its
proposal.

By direction of the Panel.

Linda A. Lafferty

Executive Director

October 8, 1992 Washington, D.C.

1.During the informal conference, agreement was reached on matters
involving official time, performance ratings for Union officials, pay banding, and on-site office space for the
Union.

2.Our decision to require the Employer to withdraw its proposal on this matter is not intended to reward the Union for
its failure to present a final offer.